It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Depopulation Plan Question

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:56 AM
Has anyone considered, just for a moment, that there aren't as many people in the world as they say
there are? Just something to ponder.
edit on 15-2-2011 by Klassified because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:59 AM
reply to post by Skewed

The history channel sadly is a propaganda tool. I wish it were not so, but it perpetuates ideas that benefit existing power structures.

That blog makes valid points about water, food, and fossil fuels. It does not address the elephant in the room. The factors that lead to these events. The economic structures that govern how these resources are distributed. I did not see the program, but as far as the chart and blog go they show no evidence of a connection to population.

Good point klassified. I guess we do not know, and it is in fact difficult to know a great deal of things for certain.
edit on 15-2-2011 by stephinrazin because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:12 AM
reply to post by searching4truth

If people would quite effing with nature, we would all be fine. If the plants and animals were allowed to reproduce naturally the growing human population would have enough resources. The only potential problem I see is water supply, however salt water can be converted, it's just too expensive for anyone to seriously invest in. So why not take the money from gm foods and place it into water conversion? Problem solved, no?

Much of the problem is due to the cost of energy. The answer is Reintroducing Thorium or to be more specific Micro Nuclear Reactor

The last time I looked into it, If the US government kept their grubby mits off, the cost would be $2,500 for each of my neighbors and I for 30 to 40 years of power. A state of the art wood stove STARTS at $6,000 and up and ONLY heats the house!

...The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. 'Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a kilowatt hour anywhere in the world,' said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. 'They will cost approximately $25m [£16m] each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $2,500 per home.'

Once you have Cheap power LOTS of problems just go away.

Look at the difference between ancient Mayan civilization and that of the Chinese or Europeans.

The BIG difference was beasts of burden - RAW POWER. You can only go so far before energy limits the advance of civilization.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by XLR8R

On the contrary, I think the first few lines of your post says it all. Your only saving grace is that you stated we are not over populated yet, but that does not detract from the fact that you are fine with the idea of population reduction as long as it fits into your idea of what is an ethical way to accomplish it.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:33 AM

Originally posted by quackers
And who says the world is overpopulated? The very people alleged to want to bump us all off. I find it very difficult to believe that this planet of ours is anywhere near close to being overpopulated.

Bingo imo.

This is a very big ball of dirt indeed. I think most of the problem focuses on food supplies and running out of it.

IF...more people lived in the country, more jobs would be worked on the land and food prices would reduce and harvests would be better, but with SO MUCH technology and big pharma spent on getting as much per acre from the land, hard work is taking a back seat.

Cram everyone together in cities where they can chase high paid jobs and complain about life alongside their fellow countrymen and the scenario plays into the hands who scream "depopulate".

So many kids who grow up in the country (in many countries) have no aspirations to get their hands dirty and want a fast track to $$$$$ so they move to the cities. Sad but true. Family values mean nothing anymore and parents presume their offspring will depart as soon as they have enough qualifications under their belts to do so. Some even sooner with college and university further education.

I say conscription into the farms and agricultural businesses of the countryside, not just so they contribute to foodstuff output, but so they understand and can pass on the true value of what keeps us all going every day.

I blame big supermarket corporations and pharma for putting output and profit before humanity and it's sensible future.

Here in France, most people grow fruit and vegetables wherever possible, it's a big place with lots of land. Somewhere like the UK is too, except all that land is owned by fatcats who would rather keep it for themselves and commute to the cities where joe bloggs can keep him or her rich.

A great film..."Eat the Rich", and an old wartime slogan "Dig for Victory" (grow food).

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by quackers

On the contrary, I think the first few lines of your post says it all....

Notice how in all the discussions of population control, everyone fails to mention the fact that the USA and EU have falling birthrates and even negative birth rates. Agrarian society promotes having lots of kids for cheap labor, especially inpoverty stricken areas where disease will kill off a lot of them. In a high tech city setting one or two kids is more the norm because it is very costly to raise and educate them.

That point is NEVER mentioned which means the "population control" measures are always aimed at the Third world/poor. Which brings us right back to the old Eugenics Movement.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by quackers

That was not my intention but in a way, wouldn't that be the prefered manner to go about depopulation? I would rather have people educate me on the problem wich is over population and how to remidiate to it. Mind you, I think for us to be over populated we would need to be at least tripple the amount of people we are now. I'd rather be educated then see my family and friends being poisoned and die of cancer and sent to wars that we don't need or force 3rd world countries to sell their natural resources to starve them.....wait a minute...that kind of sounds like what is happening right now doesn't it?
edit on 15-2-2011 by XLR8R because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by Skewed

Well OP, what's wrong with it is they want to MURDER us, and make it seem alright by giving us mind control drugs, or saying we need their help to survive, and in the end it will be bigger, swifter, and more unstoppable than the Nazi's plan.

You're plan would be great, however how long will it take for those restrictions on population growth to take effect. Our over-populated population would need to die off first. China as you prob. know has strict population guidelines, and in the states, our population control is poisoning our population with man-made natural disasters, cigarettes, soda, fluoride, and many other drugs, chemicals, and they do a great job at making it seem like our own fault. In reality it's very difficult to not be exposed to cancerous or other terminal factors, unless we are rich. All natural doesn't come cheap, and understandably yes, we need a solution so our human race doesn't go extinct.

They have it all figured out because they will be much happier when it is all over. So sit back and enjoy this ride.
edit on 2/15/2011 by SixX1874 because: more content

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:45 PM
reply to post by Skewed

So the OP is volunteering? Not sure if anyone else asked that but inquiring minds want to know - leaves more room for me.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:05 PM
cull |kəl|
verb [ trans. ] (usu. be culled)
• reduce the population of (a wild animal) by selective slaughter : he sees culling deer as a necessity | [as n. ] ( culling) kangaroo culling.
• send (an inferior or surplus animal on a farm) to be slaughtered.
a selective slaughter of wild animals.
• [usu. as adj. ] an inferior or surplus livestock animal selected for killing : a cull cow.

So you don't think a massive human cull (5.5 billion people) is a bad thing? Than you are an idiot.

This group of people who want to cull the earth's human population want YOU dead, make no mistake about. I know what your thinking, well it can't be me I'm super smart and I like their idea so it's everybody else who is going to die. That is a pretty selfish attitude to have F$%^ everyone else as long as I am ok. And how about after the "culling" you think your just gonna go back to playing halo on your xbox like everything is normal? I doubt it.

So everyone in favor of human culling, jump off a cliff. Help everyone out.

Human culling is NOT a good thing.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:15 PM
reply to post by ScRuFFy63

Yes the humane way to control the population is to control the birth rate. Within 100 or so years everyone on the planet will be dead and the population would be reduced to zero....assuming no re-population or births. So, yes, it is the control of the births that is key. While it is hard to restrict births in a free society it can be done thru "behavior modification." That is, rewards and punishment. These can take the form of fiscal (tax) measures or market economics (high cost of child rearing and state supported birth control measures). Something has to be done in the not too distant future to ration resources before someone or some 'global governance' institution comes up with more draconian measures.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:45 PM
Population is a problem because of the lifestyle of the modern world being based on asinine amounts of consumption. If we were all living more simplistic modest lives the population wouldn't be the problem that it appears to be currently.

Having said that, wouldn't it be a more ethical and moral decision to adjust the lifestyle instead of just killing off billions so we can continue to consume luxuries?

Ultimately the only justification for population reduction is to sustain the unsustainable life we have now, quite an insane concept sustain...the unsustainable...

And as others have said when reducing the population there is a "decision" being made, and tell me who on this earth or what group of people even on this earth...have the RIGHT to make such a decision?

I wouldn't mind a population reduction that was from natural circumstances (which is inevitable) as nature doesn't work through morals or ethics...

however population reduction from the hands of man...different story. I don't plan on letting some rich elite a-hole send me through a meat grinder so he can still keep his 50 luxury cars and condos around the globe...and I don't think you would either...
edit on 15-2-2011 by Sly1one because: frack

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:49 PM
I asked this question once too. Depopulation: What's the End Game? In case you're interested in what people said then.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:43 PM
reply to post by Sly1one

i was thinking about it earlier, and i agree with you.

people are talking about reducing population because there are not enough resources to go around, yet they never seem to come to the conclusion that cutting down on how many resources each person uses as being a solution to the problem.

in order to keep their luxuries and standard of consumption they would rather kill of the poor(who consume the least), so that those who consume the most can continue to do so.

the most humane way to solve it would be to limit the amount of things/resources each person can consume.

but if it did come down to 'killing' people then surely the most logical thing to do would be to kill as little people as possible whilst reducing the usage of resources. why kill many who consume the least? when it would be more logical to kill the few who consume the most?

the answer is simple, it is not about over population or lack of resources. if it were there are more options than killing people, and you certainly would not start with those that consume the least.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:13 PM
reply to post by Skewed
It is depopulation that is wrong, but population control would be a good idea and most educated people would agree. But there will be a Thread on Abovetopsecret in a few days that will shock the world at the length a few people would go to to depopulate the world by over 100 million people. That is just pure evil and sick. It is only by the grace of God they failed.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:17 PM
reply to post by Skewed

Well there are moral and ethical elements of that equation. But lets just say that if the numbers don't lie
and that shrinking bio diversity, extinction, depletion of resources will lead to mass death and disease of
humans anyway, not to mention the irreplaceable loss of other species that share this planet with us some
serious and unpopular decisions will have to be made. To make it less painful maybe a strict limitation on
how many children people can have would be a better choice than methods of war or other insidious means.
If every couple only had 2 children in their lifetime, that would stabilize the population and decrease it. Enforcing this
would be a monumental task. The opposition to such a worldwide law would be immense. The religious opposition to birth control
would be nearly insurmountable. But clearly, people having 6,7,8, or more children without the means to support
them is irresponsible and places undue and unfair burden on other humans and the enviroment. Some people
just pop out kids and expect someone else to support them. Maybe they don't even think that far ahead.
The whole idea of what I am saying is terrible no matter how you slice it. But, wouldn't birth control be morally
superior to carpet bombing? Maybe the opposition to such ideas would be so challenging that those with the
ability to depopulate may wish to circumvent the whole hassle and just start slowly implementing a plan through
contamination. I still believe it would be the high ground to put the numbers on the table and give leaders and
their people the choice rather than secret indiscriminate culling. Unfortunately, many people are uncooperative
and irresponsible so the unspeakable methods may be the only alternative.
The oceans are being depleted, and lets face it, you cannot just take, take, take, and put nothing back.
It is arrogant to think otherwise. S&F

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:40 PM
reply to post by ypperst

It is not the physical mass and space that the worlds population fills, it is the level of consumption.

Think of the Cod fish. The Atlantic Ocean was filled with them. The water was churning and boiling with
huge fish. The nets took, and, took, and took. Never allowing the population to grow back. Now look at the
Atlantic Cod population. Sad isn't it. Consider the Island of Haite. Once covered in tropical forest. look at it now.
Haite is a micro climate example of what the whole planet will eventually become as human population
grows exponentially. There is pressure already to produce more crops,etc. Going so far as to genetically modify
in order to meet demand (as well as maximize profits). Yet already we are witnessing some of the downsides
to G.M. crops. It is estimated that the honeybee is responsible for pollinating 1/3 of the worlds plants.
Yet the honeybee population is suffering massive hive losses worldwide.

Read "The Giving Tree" by Shel Silverstein. It is a book that says it all in a way that even a child could understand and some of the wisest words penned between two covers.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:57 PM
reply to post by Skewed

Dont believe everything you read.. Earth is not as overpopulated as you think and the population growth is already slowing down so much that it will be flat or even reverse in the nearish future.

We are also at the very end of this current interglacial period and will within the next 1000 years or so most likely return to glacial conditions, which will wipe out most of the human population.
Nature like always deals with such problems.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:26 PM

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by Skewed

what would be wrong with reducing the population I do not understand the big fuss.

there is nothing wrong with it, as long as your willing to be first in the queue. if your not then why should anybody else?

edit to add: i agree about education, but that is not how the so called conspiracy theory plan is talking about doing it, if it is true.
edit on 15-2-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)

There's also huge underground bunker constructin projects on-going all over the U.S.

Some of them are commercially-run in order to sell to wealthy clients wanting a "safe" underground missile silo turned into a multi-level "green" condo just in case 2012 turns out to be a little interesting.

But some of these underground construction projects are much more bizarre..

For example, It is said that the largest underground bunker ever built is still being constructed underneath the Denver International Airport and it is believed to be half a million square feet or more (not including the tunnels). It is believed that the CIA is responsible for choosing the site which is why the airport ended up in such a bizarre location with relation to the actual City of Denver.

Entire buildings were constructed and buried because they were "built wrong". There are bizarre clues all over Denver International Airport and some people say they're selling "seats" to wealthy clients.

I first heard of this bizarre Denver International Airport bunker on a TV show from Tru TV called "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura". You can watch that show at the link below..

Apocalypse 2012

I knew of some of these underground bunker complexes already. They are scattered all over the U.S. and many have entrances and other infrastructure above ground. However, the government denies the existence of most of them (this is also mentioned in the video) even though they are completely obvious in Google Earth.

The bunker in Denver is extremely unique though with regards to overall size and scope of the project. Many people were wondering why the construction of Denver International Airport was so overbudget (2-3 million to be exact). This was due in part to the tunnelling projects beneath the airport and other quality control issues. But it was probably also because it had to be constructed to be interconnected to the future bunker beneath it.

You can read more about the project HERE.

The airport was built in 1995 on 34,000 acres (53 square miles; 137.593 in spite of the fact that Denver already had what everyone said was a perfectly fine airport - Stapleton - which was ordered closed when DIA was built so there "wouldn't be any competition". In fact the new airport has less gates and less runways than Stapleton did (I hope you're saying, "That makes no sense"...). All it does have is a lot more acreage. More acreage than an airport that size could possibly need. Most which sits unused. They say it's in case they need to do any future expansion. DIA is the 7th busiest airport in the US according to a 2002 Crain's Chicago Business report.

The initial cost of this New Beast was to be 1.7 billion dollars (with a "B") but by the time they were done playing games, having problems, getting bailed out and got extra government money (and money from private corporations on top of that), it cost about $4.8 billion - obscenely over budget. I have yet to meet a local who wanted the thing built, or didn't have a frothing, rabid story about the whole mess. Words used to describe the DIA were "buried in technical problems", "poor project management", "overwhelming complexity" and "America's most inconvenient airport". It was built in a high wind area (Stapleton hadn't been) that causes it to be shut down or flights delayed often. The extensive automated baggage system so was messed up, such a circus of errors that it was worse than unusable - it was an industry joke. But it had to be built, and built there. Some say the reason that this was built and there was no stopping it, no cost spared to do so and why it was so SO overbudget and took so many years is because it's really an underground military base and a civilian detainment camp.

Below is part of an interview from 1996 by "Leading Edge International Research Journal #92". The man being interviewed is Alex Christopher.

DA: We talked about the Denver airport last night and what is really going on down there. The area is of a pretty high altitude, where it will be safe. (Denver is known as the Mile High City and is strategically protected by the Rocky Mountains/Continental Divide. The view there is breathtaking.)

AC: Yes. Plus, all the symbolism that is apparent in the layout of the new Denver airport says that it is a control center for world control. There is a lot of "secret society" symbology at the airport. We started researching all of this to find out what it all means. It's all very scary. A gentleman by the name of Al Bielek, who has been involved in some very unusual government projects in the past, told me that the Denver area is where the establishment of the Western sector of the New World Order will be in the United States. Little bits and pieces keep coming to me, confirming things I have not had confirmed before.

DA: About some of these things on the airport in Denver. Would you mind discussing some of those things again?

AC: Well, the first thing that got my attention at the airport was the capstone that I saw in a photograph, that had a Masonic symbol on it.

DA: The capstone?

AC: The capstone, or the dedication stone for the Denver airport has a Masonic symbol on it. A whole group of us went out to the airport to see some friends off and see this capstone which also has a time capsule imbedded inside it. It sits at the south eastern side of the terminal which, by the way, is called The Great Hall, which is what Masons refer to as their meeting hall. And on this thing it mentions the New World Airport Commission. I have never heard of that, have you?

DA: Never.

This capstone is also talked about and shown on the Jesse Ventura show. Even the workers at the airport have no idea who it refers to. They have no idea who the "New World Airport Commission" even is. Jesse got some leads as to what construction companies are involved with the bunker project beneath the airport. However, all of them refused to comment.


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in